From: 3:28 PM Subject: The 911 Crisis and Civil LibertiesTo: cii@igc.org (undisclosed list) "History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure." -- Justice Thurgood Marshall, Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. (1989) Dear friends, I have been concerned that this crisis would be an excuse for radical curtailment of civil liberties which could seriously impair all our attempts to generate positive change in America's policy, institutions and culture. Once you lose rights, they're much harder to get back. However, three developments have encouraged me -- even amazed me, making me feel far better about the resilience of America's institutions and ideals. a) President Bush's apparent decision to not pursue the establishment of a mandatory national ID card system, despite polls showing the public would accept it. (see A below). Also his well-publicized effort to head off demonization of Muslims and Arab-Americans. b) Congress' refusal to rubber-stamp Attorney General John Ashcroft's anti-terrorism bill (see B below). Of particular interest is a "sunset clause" added by Congress under which extraordinary powers expire in two years if not re-passed by Congress. The ACLU has further suggestions if you want to get involved (see C below), and probably offer the best site to track progress of the bill. c) The emergence of a full-spectrum coalition asserting the need to protect civil liberties and civil rights even as we try to increase the country's security. I urge you all to sign on to it, and to get organizations you're involved with to consider endorsing it. (see D below) These are still delicate times for our rights, however. One of the most important debates, I believe, is the legal definition of "terrorism." Note the FBI's definition (see E below), which leaves an uncomfortable amount of room for repression, in this administration or later, of radical activities many of us would not consider "terrorist". So we need to ask: Should terrorism be confined to politically-motivated murder of large numbers of -- or random -- civilians (like many suicide bombers do), in ways that terrify whole populations? This would be the most strict definition, it seems to me. But there are others. Should it include targeted assassinations of individuals for doing things the perpetrator finds politically or morally objectionable (like the Unibomber or the murder of abortionist doctors by "pro-life" partisans)? Should it include non-lethal violence -- e.g., threats, beating someone up, throwing a pie in someone's face? Should it include the destruction of property when no physical harm is done to people (as is done by some extreme environmentalists who burn car lots or lumber yards, or animal rights activists who damage animal research laboratories, or anarchists who break bank windows)? The question isn't if these things should be made illegal. They are all already illegal. The question is if they should be labeled as terrorism, with the added public outrage and police powers that go along with that label. There is also the issue of how one's perspective defines terrorism. There's a saying that "one country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter." President Reagan lauded the Taliban at one point, comparing them to America's founding fathers, because they were terrorizing the Russians in Afghanstan, not the US and its allies. And many people feel that massive civilian casualties in wars -- whether committed "accidentally" as "collatoral damage" or by design to demoralize the population (as in the bombing of Hiroshima and Dresden in WWII) -- should be categorized as terrorism, because the population DOES become terrorized. These are more moral than legal questions, but are no less important, given the ability of the term "terrorism" to galvanize the fear of millions of people, who are then likely to take or authorize extreme actions in response. The term should not be used lightly or sloppily. A final concern I'd like to share regarding our rights and liberties are the very serious press restrictions on coverage of the war that our government is preparing (see F below for a history of the Pentagon's press control and a prospective on what we can expect this time). While I reluctantly admit that there are times when information must be kept secret in order for effective action to be taken (especially in an adversarial, sensationalist culture like our current one), all secrecy undermines democracy. There should be limits or oversight -- or at least an after-the-fact answerability to avoid the kinds of abuse described in the articles below. Secrecy should only be accepted in cases of legitimate security, not to protect reputations, political agendas and repressive behaviors by officials. That said, I am cautiously optimistic that the worst I feared -- a railroading of draconian repressive measures through Congress by the administration with the approval of a frightened public -- is not going to happen. It still could, especially if there are further dramatic terrorist strikes, as expected. It behooves us to remember Thomas Jefferson's oft-quoted advice that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Coheartedly, Tom _ _ _ _ (A) http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20010927-90529994.htm PUBLIC MAY FAVOR A NATIONAL ID CARD By August Gribbin The Washington Times Thursday, September 27, 2001 "The White House has ruled out creating a national identity card system as a counterterrorism measure." and "Seventy percent favor issuing a national identity card as one measure 'for curbing terrorism,' 26 percent opposed the idea and 4 percent had no opinion, according to a nationwide telephone survey of 1,200 persons between Sept. 13 and 17. It was done by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press." [The article describes some of the pros and cons of such an ID system. You can also read http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/ellsn092301.htm# -- Tom] (B) The Washington Post today http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61532-2001Oct3.html editorialized that "the drum-beaters make no showing that the bill's objectionable provisions would serve to prevent the possibility they so loosely invoke. It's not clear that some of the powers they seek would be a clear gain for law enforcement, much less that the possible gain would be worth the serious civil liberties loss. "In the House, Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner and ranking Democrat John Conyers, two senior figures rarely allied, have worked together to produce a compromise bill now being shopped among their members. It retains worthy provisions from the administration's bill. For example, it would let the government seek court approval to place a wiretap not just on a particular phone but on a person regardless of which phone he might use. "But the compromise would alter other, troublesome provisions. The administration sought the power to detain indefinitely without judicial review any alien whom it suspected MIGHT be engaged in terrorist or other activity that could endanger national security. The Sensenbrenner-Conyers draft would hedge that -- tighten somewhat the standard for such detention, limit the duration, provide for review -- and the draft contains a sunset provision under which this and most of the other extraordinary powers in the bill would expire after two years. That's progress, but indefinite detention with little prospect of review would still be possible under certain circumstances; the language needs work. "The bill was similarly improved in other areas, having to do with wiretapping and the use of intelligence information in law enforcement. The standard for gathering intelligence is rightly looser than the eavesdropping standard in law enforcement; the two need to be kept distinct. But here too, and in such other areas as the underlying definition of terrorism and the standard the government should have to meet to examine e-mail, the bill can benefit from further review. This is a bill that is full of risks, in both directions." see also Lawmakers from both parties expressed deep concerns Monday with anti-terrorism legislation proposed by the White House, telling Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that many of the provisions would undermine Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-000076727sep25.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines %2Dpolitics (C) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recommends the following http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/: Limiting the government's power to indefinitely detain non-citizens. The amendment would tweak the Sensenbrenner-Conyers legislation to be consistent with a Supreme Court ruling last year and allow indefinite detention only of non-citizens who are ordered deported on "terrorism" grounds and require the Attorney General to periodically determine whether the non-citizen continues to pose a danger to the nation. Restoring a modicum of judicial supervision to electronic wiretapping and limit the information about U.S. citizens that winds up in the hands of the Central Intelligence Agency. An amendment to insure that wiretaps authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act not be used as a "backdoor" way around constitutional requirements is expected. Narrowing the definition of terrorism under federal law to include only acts that common sense dictates are terrorism. For example, under the proposed Sensenbrenner-Conyers legislation, an organization like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) could be considered a terrorist group because one of its members hits the Secretary of Agriculture with a pie. (D) ENDORSE THE "IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM" PRINCIPLES The In Defense of Freedom Coalition includes a broad array of more than 150 groups that span the political spectrum, from the ACLU and Common Cause to Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and the American Conservative Union, as well as major civil rights organizations such as the NAACP and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Arab-American groups, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International. They have all endorsed a broad statement of principles (below) that urges Congress and the Administration to work calmly and deliberately to respond to terrorists and reminds them that the Constitution and our civil liberties are the core of our American heritage and must be protected. You can get more information on the coalition, or endorse the statement (as an individual or an organization) at: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ Please pass this message on to your friends, family, and colleagues and encourage them to endorse these principles as well. IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM 1. On September 11, 2001 thousands of people lost their lives in a brutal assault on the American people and the American form of government. We mourn the loss of these innocent lives and insist that those who perpetrated these acts be held accountable. 2. This tragedy requires all Americans to examine carefully the steps our country may now take to reduce the risk of future terrorist attacks. 3. We need to consider proposals calmly and deliberately with a determination not to erode the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the American way of life. 4. We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the principles of a democratic society, accountable government and international law, and that all decisions are taken in a manner consistent with the Constitution. 5. We can, as we have in the past, in times of war and of peace, reconcile the requirements of security with the demands of liberty. 6. We should resist the temptation to enact proposals in the mistaken belief that anything that may be called anti-terrorist will necessarily provide greater security. 7. We should resist efforts to target people because of their race, religion, ethnic background or appearance, including immigrants in general, Arab Americans and Muslims. 8. We affirm the right of peaceful dissent, protected by the First Amendment, now, when it is most at risk. 9. We should applaud our political leaders in the days ahead who have the courage to say that our freedoms should not be limited. 10. We must have faith in our democratic system and our Constitution, and in our ability to protect at the same time both the freedom and the security of all Americans. (E) http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress01/freeh051001.htm "The FBI views domestic terrorism as the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual that is based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction and which is committed against persons or property with the intent of intimidating or coercing a government or its population in furtherance of political or social objectives." "The second category of domestic terrorists, left-wing groups, generally profess a revolutionary socialist doctrine and view themselves as protectors of the people against the "dehumanizing effects" of capitalism and imperialism. They aim to bring about change in the United States through revolution rather than through the established political process." "Anarchists and extremist socialist groups -- many of which, such as the Workers' World Party, Reclaim the Streets, and Carnival Against Capitalism -- have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States. For example, anarchists, operating individually and in groups, caused much of the damage during the 1999 World Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Seattle." "Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect more widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including, the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other political and social movements." (F) http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11606 DESERT STORM DISINFORMATION Jacqueline Sharkley, TomPaine.com October 1, 2001 http://www.mediachannel.org/views/interviews/macarthur.shtml Censorship And The War On Terrorism John MacArthur interviewed by Gerti Schoen John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine, is author of the book "Second Front," about censorship in the Gulf War. "This will be the most censored war in history" September 27, 2001 ________________________________ Tom Atlee * The Co-Intelligence Institute * PO Box 493 * Eugene, OR 97440 http://www.co-intelligence.org * http://www.democracyinnovations.org Please support our work. * Your donations are fully tax-deductible.